and the pc kills by my count over a dozen sometimes get "donations" what blackwall was just a Tuesday doing what he thought was best for his nation
No, he did it because he was paid and he wanted the money. He says as much. At no point did he think he was promoting a great and righteous cause.
Neither Blackwall, nor Thom Rainier have ever been murderers.
The way it's actually presented is rather that he was sending his men out to attack the entire travelling party in what is a essentially military operation**, and some moment during, he realizes that there's civillians there. So he starts to panic and to bite his nails and hopes for the thing to blow over quickly. I'm only saying that because it seems to me, most people have the image stuck inside their heads that Rainier charged the car & cut each family member open himself with his sword & a boodlusty grin on his face.
It's stated at numerous times that he commanded the thing and simply didn't step in. That sounds disrespectful, but if killing the guards and the noble was all fair game (which, seriously, it would have been), then what happened was a terrible accident, and a weak-minded person in charge who failed to step forward in time; like it happens in RL catastrophes (during and outside war) all the time. I am not reasoning that this circumstance removes the guilt from him. This doesn't make it less terrible, but it makes it a different flavour of terrible. These kinds of flavours, who also happen to be precisely what justice and morals are based on. It's not exactly any worse than military generals ordering whide-spaced aerial strikes on cities during war to intimidate the enemy by willingly and decidedly killing obscene numbers of civillians. Except Rainier actually hates that he was responsible for what he never wanted to happen in the first place.
Like I said before, I can see why people would say that a murderer deserves death penalty to protect society from their ways, (since there's also no satisfaction for the family since they're all dead -not to mention how terrible and self-depricating I find that particular reasoning in general.) Except Rainier's ways never have been, not even during the very killing, of someone who thinks it's okay to kill a civilian. He stopped being selfish, blind, cowardly and greedy. He didn't "stop" being a murderer, cause he never was one, so to speak.
**rogue military operations within a regime to avoid certain required justifications are hardly uncommon enough to even be called "rogue"
If we make the assumption that Rainier's actions were, effectively, legitimate military orders, that still doesn't help his case. All that means is that his leadership failings led to a massacre. So...great, now he's guilty of a war crime?
It's also worth noting that part of the reason for the confusion and tragedy was that his men weren't fully briefed on the mission. So even if we accept that Orlesian cultural norms meant Rainier would have considered this as morally justifiable as any other action, it's hard to separate the end result from the fact that he was taking under the table money and lying to his troops.
The question of a murderer's mindset is a questionable thing to try and define. People commit murder for many reasons. Some consciously, intentionally or spitefully. Some in moments of fear and weakness. I think saying that he doesn't have a murderer's mindset because he didn't plan it with premeditation is a semantic difference that's not necessarily useful.
I do think that motive and intent are important, absolutely. But I think different people here are reacting to different parts of this puzzle.
For some the fact that the murder of the children wasn't premeditated is a mitigating factor.
For others the fact that he had the chance to prevent the murder and didn't take it is unforgivable.
For me, I'd also add that he got himself into this situation for purely selfish reasons. That means I have less sympathy for the paralysing fear and confusion that may have rendered him unable to save innocents from his own mistakes. Whether it was culturally acceptable or not, by his own admission, he took the money for the job purely for personal financial gain. There was no element of it that related to his own survival or any perceived higher cause.
While I accept that some will disagree, Leliana went on the run and put her own life at risk when she found Marjolaine crossing blinding moral boundaries, and later, when working for Justinia, she felt that she serving a greater purpose. Zevran was raised in an environment that taught him to murder from the time he was an young boy and knew if he didn't carry out his contract, his own life would be forfeit.
Does that excuse them? No, not necessarily, and I respect people who feel that way. But Rainier wasn't raised to this culturally (either in the specific way Zev was or in the broader sense: he's from the Free Marches, not Orlais), he wasn't compelled to take the contract under threat to his life, and he has no greater cause spurring him to action.
His greed caused this situation and his cowardice allowed it to escalate. Those things are true regardless of whether we label it murder, regardless of whether we believe his later contrition, and they definitely affect my levels of sympathy for his plight.
Final point: after it all happened, he let his men take the blame, and most of them were executed for it. He may have allowed kids to be murdered in a moment of panic, but he let all his men go to the axe very intentionally. And was, in fact, still letting that happen while he was off Blackwalling his way around Ferelden on his quest for personal redemption.
Honestly, I think that the men who carried out his orders also have some explaining to do if they were legitimately willing to kill children. The concept of an illegal order exists for a reason. But they were also completely hung out to dry by their commanding officer. The deaths caused by Thom Rainier's inaction and cowardice aren't limited to the family he ordered killed.
A genuinely good person wouldn't spend years living a lie to hide from their actions.
Or act self-righteous by lecturing others on subjects they have no right to.
What I meant to say was I think his trying to atone for his crimes meant he was worth giving a second chance to, that I wanted him to continue atoning by serving the Inquisition(being my party tank). I'm not here to convince you what I'm saying is right or makes sense, just that I have my own reasons and reasoning.
Exactly.
I really do think that the writers' (apparent) intentions hold a lot of sway. If a person who for the lack of a better word could be called "evil" is presented as badass or sexy or admirable or as flat-out comic relief, and there is no way to question them, judge them or otherwise hold them responsible, you're fishing for that "kewlolol" reaction even though such a character, too, should be "divisive" to say the least. When such characters share a story and setting with people who are less objectionable but presented as divisive and able to be judged and condemned, it creates a really weird disconnect.
At any rate, I think another reason also plays into this: Blackwall lied to us, and if you used the treaties it creates trouble for us. Lying and theft and murder and pretty much any crime under the sun may be "kewlolol" to a lot of people if presented in the "right" way and aimed at the "right" people (such as "authority figures" who dare to try placing limits on what the almighty player character can do) ... but if the player becomes the target, it's not so "kewlolol" anymore for some strange reason.
Yes, Blackwall breaking the others' trust and handing the protagonist authority via the treaties that he's not actually qualified to give are problems. I'm not denying that, but I do find it baffling when people treat that as his "real" crime, one that is worse than him taking money to kill someone and then not calling off the slaughter when he realized the whole family was present.
I agree with this.
Why did I free him? Because he is useful as a tank.
That Rainier is guilty of murder either through action or inaction is unquestionable.
But the fact that he deeply regrets it now is a strong mitigating factor for me. It's sort of that Planescape: Torment question "What can change the nature of a man?" In this case the answer seems to be "regret"
Blackwall: Cole, if you knew what I am, what I'd done, why didn't you tell the others?
Cole: Everyone hides dead things. Everyone pretends. You wanted to fix it.
Blackwall: I'm a murderer.
Cole: You don't want to be. You made a new you. You are Blackwall. You killed Rainier.
Blackwall: If only that were possible.
Cole: You would stand between Rainier and the carriage. But you can't. It doesn't work like that.
Cole: So you carry the bodies to remember.
Blackwall: I suppose I do.
I mean, he ends up so ashamed that he takes on Blackwall's identity. Not to escape justice, but because he felt Blackwall was a better man than he, and didn't deserve to die any more than Raniner deserved to live. So he makes Blackwall "live" the only way he can. By becoming him and living Blackwall's life as best he knows how. Messed up, yeah, but I can see why he did it.
And that's why I give him a second chance. One playthrough I pardoned him completely. The other I told him I'd send him to the Wardens when the crisis passed.
What I meant to say was I think his trying to atone for his crimes meant he was worth giving a second chance to, that I wanted him to continue atoning by serving the Inquisition(being my party tank). I'm not here to convince you what I'm saying is right or makes sense, just that I have my own reasons and reasoning.
I agree. I spare him from the hangman's noose and instead sentence him to spend his life under Inquisition custody atoning for his crimes.
Fair point.He was already avoiding justice by being recruited into the Wardens.
Question about that, if you don't mind. To unlock tiles for DA:I I have to do said things in-game? Do I have to finish the entire game, or just that one part? Like just save Rainer and I'll automatically get the tile, or do I have to complete the game?Seriously, I did it for the unlock for the Keep. I got rid of him twice for two different reasons first two play throughs.
My BFF also plays, she kept him because she thought he was cute and was her fav tank.
Well, that's a poll of two anyway.
But my Inquisitor doesn't know that.That we know of.
Even Zevran says that even if you try your hardest to make the job quick, easy, and clean... innocents sometimes get caught in the crossfire. And I'm sure Leliana, who seduced and killed and lied to the Warden about her identity, is all too familiar with that. She's still a good person, in my estimation. So's Blackwall.
I agree. I spare him from the hangman's noose and instead sentence him to spend his life under Inquisition custody atoning for his crimes.
Great. Keep in mind that while I said that, I'v never done anything except pardon him.
Fair point.
Question about that, if you don't mind. To unlock tiles for DA:I I have to do said things in-game? Do I have to finish the entire game, or just that one part? Like just save Rainer and I'll automatically get the tile, or do I have to complete the game?
You have to do the event to unlock it the normal way in the keep. The faster way would be to disable all spoiler titles so you can see every outcome.
That we know of.
She doesn't seduce, she falls in love. She lied for only a little bit, but comes clean within a single treaty quest. And she killed the Warden? WHAT?!?! When did she kill the Warden? When you taint the ashes right in front of her and you got a gameover, as in an uncanon moment (since gameovers in DAO are uncanon)???
Great. Keep in mind that while I said that, I'v never done anything except pardon him.
You have to do the event to unlock it the normal way in the keep. The faster way would be to disable all spoiler titles so you can see every outcome.
She doesn't seduce, she falls in love. She lied for only a little bit, but comes clean within a single treaty quest. And she killed the Warden? WHAT?!?! When did she kill the Warden? When you taint the ashes right in front of her and you got a gameover, as in an uncanon moment (since gameovers in DAO are uncanon)???
She didn't say she killed the Warden
She doesn't seduce, she falls in love. She lied for only a little bit, but comes clean within a single treaty quest. And she killed the Warden? WHAT?!?! When did she kill the Warden? When you taint the ashes right in front of her and you got a gameover, as in an uncanon moment (since gameovers in DAO are uncanon)???
Or rather "save" him.
Why did you do it? I don't see why anyone would. For one thing, it's the justice system and that's how it works. Not to mention that he willingly decided to do it and I figured I'd respect his wishes.
So for anyone who brought Blackwall back to Skyhold, what was your reasoning? I feel like even if you romanced him you wouldn't do that, but that's just my thought.
My main reason is that he's an excellent tank and I'd rather not lose that advantage 
, also he's done a lot to make amends(pretending to be a GW, helping the inquisition) and he didn't even have all the information when he attacked the general, he thought it was just the general and his guard. Overall I found it easy to forgive him given the unique circumstances.
She doesn't seduce, she falls in love. She lied for only a little bit, but comes clean within a single treaty quest. And she killed the Warden? WHAT?!?! When did she kill the Warden? When you taint the ashes right in front of her and you got a gameover, as in an uncanon moment (since gameovers in DAO are uncanon)???
"And I'm sure Leliana, who seduced and killed, and lied to the Warden about her identity, is all too familiar with that."
Fixed it. This is why proper punctuation is important, people.
I haven't dismissed him yet, and don't forsee doing so, even if he's not romanced. The reason I keep him is because I like him. He's a good fighter and easy to get along with while you explore. Most of the companions betray you one way or another, and everyone, no matter how well-regarded, has something they'd rather no one know. Most real people have something bad for a stupid reason and wished they could pretend they didn't do it, too. It's usually insignificant and is forgotten as soon as the blush fades. Since it's a judgement call as to degree when you're talking about issues like forgiveness, it's a good thing his crime is something easy to quantify. It's just plain bad, with no redeeming features. It makes the decision much easier. Either your inquisitor is the forgiving kind or not. I wonder if there's any correlation between pardoning Blackwall and directing Cole's nature? Both dilemmas are about the inquisitor's attitude toward forgiveness.
You were looking for him because he was a warden, and it turns out he wasn't one. He's just a really good fighter who can help the inquisition the same way he has been all along. That much hasn't changed. He comitted mass murder involving young children, motivated by greed. They do go into the motivation behind his greed a little bit, if you talk to him about it, and like most motivation behind doing something awful, it's not really all that great. Point is, look at the other companions. None of them are really squeaky clean, are they (thank goodness.)
Solas is living under an assumed identity in order to avoid the consequences of his crime, which is, strangely enough mass murder, but it involves all the high-ranking members of a rival religion. He didn't blow up the conclave, he just let Corypheus. That was why he was in the neighborhood trying ineffectively to fix what he let loose. He doesn't have the courage to admit his identity or the gravity of his crime, even after he criticizes Blackwall for it, he just leaves and lets you find out about it later from someone else. But he has the temerity to criticize Blackwall. And the presumption to give advice to Cole. I always send Cole to Varric. Fen'Harel may know more about being a spirit in the real world, but he's a jerk and I get tired of listening to him once I've found enough artifacts to get the bonus rift. By the time we meet Corypheus he's hanging out in his office wearing his smallclothes and waving a broomstick.
Varric is the Thedas equivalent of an old-time mobster, even down to Bianca, which he holds like a tommy gun. He tells stories and is easy to get along with, reminding me of several people, but his black market stuff was what started the whole mess with the red lyrium. He's a smooth talker and you do never know if he's telling the truth or protecting someone, who or may not deserve protection. Point is, as lovable and familiar as he is, he has a very criminal past, and his mess is also biting Inq's butt.
Vivenne is using her position of power within the Inquisition to maneuver into assuming control of the Chantry. She tells you her political connections up front, but not how extensive they are until you've brought her (difficult to obtain) ingredients for an elixir that is probably of morally questionable origin. Her kinda sister-in-law, the grand cleric, says the Circle declared Bastien's illness incurable, so Viv had to find the recipe from a source outside the Circle. So, she condemns the use of magic outside circle sanction, while using it herself, meanwhile placing herself in position to control what is to be sanctioned in the future. Right. If you've got nothing against a scheming dictator being in charge of the largest political body in Thedas, while not being shy about working outside it if the need suits her, she's your gal. She'll even betray her own people to ensure her view of the world is adopted (she's a mage and favors a return to the system that started the mage war.)
Sera's an agitator who wants to upset the world order to make it better for the ones on the bottom. I don't agree with how effective her pranks are, but at least they are (mostly) harmless to the people she's trying to help. The problem with her is that she's really limited in scope and can't see how sometimes her way of doing things makes things worse, not better. Those kitchen elves might not have been getting pushed around by the cook if she hadn't tried to fix it with her pranks, for instance.
If you don't like Blackwall, that's fine. I think the writers did such a great job portraying everyone, you've got plenty of reasons not to get along. He's coarse, not the most cunning man in the world, and has a past he's lied about. The thing is, you get the chance to tell him what you think and send him away if you want, or just leave him to rot and never even come for him in jail, in which case, he'll pay for his crimes. It's not as if he's the only warrior. If you like, you can even just keep him as long as you need him and send him to the wardens when you're done with him, after the game. You get enough information to make that decision, and there are even different consequences for each. I just don't see how there can be any one right decision.
Most of the companions betray you one way or another...
^That answer can't possibly be correct, universally, as it's an opinion. It is also rationally debased by the fact the story has different endings which fuel the question. In other areas using the "writer wrote it, who are we to say" point can be valid if not ultimate, here however the writer posed the question being discussed.
So I do it, then sync with the Keep and then it updates?
Yes.
Short answer:
Because I felt allowing him die was letting him off easy.
IMHO, he can spent the rest of his life working off his debt to society under the watchful eye on The Inquisition.
Nobody in this thread has responded with the correct answer to this question. And yes, there is one.
The correct answer is "because it leads to the best story." That's why.
How moral or immoral you think something is...that's not really relevant. You're not the one telling the story. The narrator is.
In every single RPG I've played, I've made 'good' decisions as my main playthrough. And in every single RPG, I've thought at least a few of those decisions were not really 'good' at all and oftentimes outright dumb. Every one. But so what?
What do people think they're accomplishing by essentially saying "No narrator, you're wrong!"? It's their world. They control everything that happens.
That's a great question, and I hope the technology (game design, software, and hardware) continue to improve to the point where it becomes a central question. Games should be about what we choose to do. Rigid stories can be told in books and movies quite well. The interactive medium of gaming should allow for the player to mould the story to a great extent, much more than a few simple branches that ultimately don't impact the world much, if at all.
That's a great question, and I hope the technology (game design, software, and hardware) continue to improve to the point where it becomes a central question. Games should be about what we choose to do. Rigid stories can be told in books and movies quite well. The interactive medium of gaming should allow for the player to mould the story to a great extent, much more than a few simple branches that ultimately don't impact the world much, if at all.
Retour en haut
